Anti-Americanism not part of Chomsky's argument
His letter is unfair to Amnesty and RTÉ and is also a strident and uninformed attack on a perceived anti-Americanism - which is not part of Chomsky's argumentation.
Chomsky is one of the world's leading thinkers. He is one of a minority who put their reputations on the line to question the motives and results of political action.
The US broadcast media effectively silences Chomsky, one of its leading intellectuals, because (a) it cannot sell programming that involves asking people to think, and (b) it won't air the views of someone who refuses to encapsulate them in a 15-second soundbite.
Simplistic questions, like "Who saved the democratic world from Stalin's aggression in the Berlin blockade of 1948?", are evidence that Mr Carew does not understand Chomsky.
The whole thrust of Chomsky's political writing and speaking is to question the wholesale acceptance of the infallibility of American political thinking at government level.
Chomsky does not argue that American political action has had no positive effects, but rather that American political action is often inimical to the welfare of the very people it is allegedly helping, and quite often also at variance with its publicly stated reasons for said action.
US and British intervention in the affairs of sovereign states over many years must always be questioned, because a slavish capitulation to the principle that 'might is right', which Mr Carew seems to advocate, serves no one.
Calling Chomsky a "fellow-traveller of Osama bin Laden" is just silly, as is the calling of British prime minister Tony Blair and US senator Joseph Lieberman "freedom fighters".
Mr Carew should view the film Manufacturing Consent, by Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky. This might distil some of the bias from his thinking.
Nicholas Caffrey
Adrigole
Beara
Co Cork
FAR from airing a "tired bias" on RTÉ, the interview to which Tom Carew refers (Irish Examiner letters, January 24), Noam Chomsky was a breath of fresh air.
He allowed skilful logic to present clear arguments. The conclusions naturally followed. This he achieved with remarkable clarity - even if Mark Little seemed a bit out of his depth and continually kept interrupting.
And, yes, Mr Carew, we all know the power of the US and who was first on the moon. That is not the point. We know very well and we acknowledge, too, how much US influence has helped our own economy and, indeed, helped the world.
We also know which was the first nation to use atomic weapons and obliterate millions of innocent civilians in the greatest war atrocity of all time. And we know about the US war crimes in Vietnam.
But it doesn't follow that Chomsky is a "fellow traveller of Osama bin Laden". In the interview he clearly condemned all infringements of human rights by all terrorists - whether they be on the left or on the right. As the man said, there is no black and white.
Obviously, Chomsky's forthright message and his call that the mightiest power on earth be judged by its own Nuremberg criteria is not popular with protagonists of the Iraq war. The message was plain and simple: that America be judged by stated American standards of justice. If this is not nice to hear, don't shoot the messenger.
Brendan Coffey
Abbey Court
Monkstown
Co Dublin
I READ Tom Carew's letter (Irish Examiner, January 24) hoping to see an intelligent response to even one of Noam Chomsky's arguments.
Unfortunately, what I read was a list of the good things the US has done. I am unsure how this illustrates a "tired bias" on Chomsky's part.
The argument seems to be that the US has done good things and therefore must not be questioned. This is a dangerous view. The more powerful a nation/organisation, the more searching the criticism should be. This is what democracy and freedom are all about.
Kieran O'Sullivan
Tramore
Co Waterford
